Do Two California Cities Determine the Fate of Beverage Freedom?

The analogy that soda is to obesity as tobacco is to tobacco-related illnesses is a one that is as overused as it is false. Tobacco is the undisputed cause of tobacco-related illness; obesity is caused by everything from overeating to under-sleeping. When the analogy is used to justify regulations like New York City’s reviled big-soda ban, it is insidious. When it is used to place the fate of food freedom on a vote in two small California cities, it is ripe for parody.

And that is exactly what The New York Times’ resident food scold and amateur epidemiologist, Mark Bittman, has done in his most recent column. Bittman, a supporter of a tax-and-subsidy regime for each of the 38,000-plus items in the standard grocery store — surely a byzantine scheme — is eager to see if two small California cities will approve taxes on soda and other sweet drinks. He hopes that from those cities will raise a flood of taxes on drinks he doesn’t like. And best yet, he predicts we’ll all be grateful to whichever city first punishes us for our own good.